Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-21-Speech-3-066"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040421.3.3-066"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to begin by supporting the presidency's commendation of Irish hospitality. Having spent the weekend at two conferences in Ireland myself, I can warmly endorse what the Minister said and I also warmly endorse his other remarks, not least what he said about our relations with Canada.
We discussed the Middle East earlier, and I will not dwell on the arguments that we analysed an hour or so ago with some sadness. I will simply say that we have to encourage modernisation throughout the region along the sort of lines now suggested in two UNDP reports. We have to support Arab initiatives and Arab ownership of modernisation and democratisation, and must develop the plans that we already have in place – for example through the Euromed partnership – rather than believing it necessary to introduce new institutional arrangements.
I would in particular like to underline the importance that Commissioner Lamy and I attach to the successful conclusion, as soon as possible, of a free trade agreement between the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
I repeat that, by and large, we are more likely to achieve most of the things we want to achieve in the world if we can work with the United States. It is also true – though perhaps not as often conceded – that the United States is more likely to be able to achieve what it wants if it is able to work with us.
We agree that there is much for the European Union and the US to do both in terms of our bilateral dealings and in cooperation in the wider world. The extent to which this requires the establishment of new structures or working methods is more difficult to judge. However, I note that since the launch of the New Transatlantic Agenda in 1995 the mechanisms of the relationship have served us well. The ups and downs we have experienced have been the result not of the institutions of the NTA but of genuine policy disagreements. They have not been the result of procedural failure or systemic failure.
Where we have seen the need for changes we have been quite pragmatic. For example, we are about to launch an enhanced security dialogue with the United States, which should reduce the scope for confusion and confrontation on a range of transport and other protective security matters. Though I follow what the President-in-Office said in his extremely sensitive remarks about the issue of passenger name records, I am not quite sure what sort of dialogue the United States would expect us to carry forward if on this issue – which we have put a lot of effort into resolving – we were now to either scupper the prospects of an agreement or to put it on the backburner for the indefinite future. Do we wish to be taken seriously in this realm or not?
With elections looming here and in the United States, with a new Commission to be appointed in the autumn and with the Constitutional Treaty coming over the horizon, I would argue that this is not necessarily the right time for a really radical change. However, I totally accept that just as we need to look at the workings of the transatlantic economy, we should also review the workings of the New Transatlantic Agenda. To that effect, I am about to launch an independent study of the New Transatlantic Agenda which, in turn, should form the basis of an EU-US policy review in 2005. I believe that is the right timing. I respect those who take a different point of view, but hope we all recognise that we are working towards the same objectives.
When one has problem-free relationships, it very often means that one does not discuss them sufficiently or with sufficient enthusiasm. However we did set out last year, in a Commission document, some sensible proposals about beefing-up our trade and investment relationship with Canada. Those were sensible proposals that were well received by our Canadian friends. From the Middle East to the other trouble spots around the world we invariably see eye-to-eye with our Canadian friends who, I think, very much accept our notion of effective multilateralism. So I was pleased that the Minister referred to that important relationship.
I am obviously grateful for the opportunity to commend once again the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy for its commitment – demonstrated by this resolution – to the evolution and strengthening of transatlantic ties. It is a testament to this House's maturity and common sense that, amidst the emotions of a turbulent 18 months, it has maintained a positive and objective approach. That this relationship remains the keystone in the European Union's external relations is not to be doubted. We have often talked in this Chamber not only about the stakes involved – the enormous flow of goods, services and investment and the millions of jobs that depend on them – but also about how this partnership is indispensable for promoting democracy, overcoming regional instability and coping with global challenges.
It is worth recalling some of the remarkable achievements there have been in the area of economic cooperation. Mutual recognition agreements have removed technical barriers in fields ranging from telecommunications to marine equipment. We have entered into bilateral agreements on customs procedures and veterinary equivalents. We are progressing in discussions on the regulatory dialogue in financial markets, removing obstacles for our operators in this ever more integrated industry. We are well advanced in negotiations on a cooperation agreement for Galileo and GPS and we are moving towards an open aviation area agreement.
Despite all these successes much still remains to be done in pressing forward regulatory convergence. Neither the transatlantic economic partnership nor the positive economic agenda have developed as fully as we would have liked in removing barriers. We are therefore considering a joint EU-US review of the transatlantic economy, to report to the 2005 EU-US summit with a view to identifying impediments to further economic integration and to addressing the means for removing them.
We have talked too about the importance of the relationship beyond the confines of the transatlantic community. After the strains in our relationship last year it has now become clear to all that we face common challenges which we will overcome far more effectively in combination than in competition. This of course implies that we have the political will in the European Union to unite our positions, and that we have in addition the capacity to act.
The language of transatlantic cooperation can often seem tired and clichéd. That is no reason to allow these important truths to go unsaid or to be drowned out by the discordant notes of those whom, for whatever reason, look to divide Europe and the United States. In this spirit, I welcome the priorities set out in the resolution, many of which are familiar and match those on which we are working in the run-up to the EU-US Summit to which the Minister referred.
I would like to single out very briefly three issues which are referred to in the resolution. First of all, HIV/AIDS. The European Union and the United States have both welcomed last years World Trade Organisation decision on the TRIPS agreement and public health. We must now implement this decision in legislative form without delay, with the active support of our business communities. We must ensure that the Global Health Fund can build on sustained and reliable sources of funding. In order to address the root causes of the pandemic in Africa, we are looking to European Union and US investors to establish a partnership to promote the improvement of health care where they operate in Africa, and we clearly need to do more together to tackle poverty there.
Second, a brief word on China and Russia. Russia's proximity to Europe and the speed and scale of economic development in China suggests that we must continue to engage closely with both. Continuing political engagement and a range of financial instruments demonstrate our determination to encourage Russia's development as a stable, prosperous democracy. We will continue to encourage China to take a greater role in international affairs concomitant with its expanding economic capacity and interests. I hope we can encourage our US friends to regard China's stability and economic development as a good thing for all of us, rather than as a threat."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples